“Nations that have adopted contraception have not seen a drop in abortions,” fulminated a recent post in an anti-RH Facebook page. “That’s a patent lie.” This is such a common anti-choice trope, that anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson can repeat it without supporting data, and without fear of rebuttal.

Too bad the data doesn’t support their claims. More widespread contraceptive use correlates strongly with lower abortions.Diehard opponents of the pending Reproductive Health Bill will find this statement difficult to parse, much less accept: after all, aren’t abortions and contraceptives just two cogs in the same anti-life mechanism? Don’t abortion rates go up with rates of contraceptive use?

Actually, no – many studies show that abortion rates recede if decision makers are provided enough information and a wider range of contraceptive choices.

The states comprising the former Soviet Union are the perfect place to test this – a large population for whom “abortion was legal and widely available, whereas contraceptives were in limited supply” (Marston & Cleland). The data supports the conclusion that as more contraceptive methods were introduced, the rate of abortions began to drop precipitously.

Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the EvidencebyCicely Marston and John Cleland (published in International Family Planning Perspectives) finds that “increases in contraceptive prevalence and reductions in abortion appear to be related. Abortion rates in the republics examined have declined over the last decade, and there has been a simultaneous rise in use of modern contraceptive methods.”

There is ample evidence that abortion is declining and that contraceptive use is increasing in the Central Asian Republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic….

For many decades, abortion was the principal method of birth control in the former Soviet Union both because of the unavailability of modem contraceptive methods and because of negative attitudes on the part of the medical establishment, particularly regarding oral contraceptives. What is remarkable is how rapidly this substitution of contraception for abortion seems to be occurring, with major shifts apparent in the space of less than a decade.

The money quote is on page 8.

Another perspective that indicates an increase in contraceptive use in these populations is the recent sharp decline in the fertility rate itself. Since there is no evidence for an increase in age at marriage or age at sexual initiation or in the duration of postpartum insusceptibility or for any decrease in coital frequency, the only plausible explanation for the decline in fertility is the increased use of contraception. In theory, the decline could be caused by an increase in abortion, however, none of the evidence points in this direction. In fact, ail of the indicators point in the opposite direction.

The trend is not limited to former Soviet bloc countries. Recent Trends in Abortion Rates Worldwide by Stanley Henshaw et al. studied the incidence of legal induced abortions in 54 countries, based on official national data.

The study looked at 20 years of data, and concluded that the use of abortion is likely to fall rapidly when multiple contraceptive methods are widely available and effectively promoted and used. Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan and Latvia saw abortion rates decline by 28-47%, a similar pattern being seen in Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Republics. Denmark, Finland, Italy and Japan have seen abortion rates drop by 40-50%.

Temporary Rise in Abortion Rates?

Some critics may note that some countries covered in the surveys quoted above experienced a temporary rise in both contraception and abortion rates – however, this is the exception that prove the rule.

Marston and Cleland acknowledge six countries where contraceptive usage and abortion incidence rise at the same time, but only temporarily: “Eventually, abortion should be replaced by contraception if levels of contraceptive prevalence continue to rise and fertility stabilizes,” say Marston and Cleland. “This pattern also seems to have occurred in Denmark (1970–1990), the Netherlands (1970–1995) and the United States (1965–1995)… In each country, the decline was accompanied by a continued rise in levels of contraceptive use, and the stabilization of fertility at a lower level than before.”

In Southeast Asia, Singapore saw “the same pattern of an initial rise in both abortion and contraceptive use” from 1970 to 1985, followed by a decline in abortion from 1985 onwards.

In situations where increased demand for fertility regulation combine with falling fertility levels, conclude Marston & Cleland, abortion may be resorted to temporarily, but as contraceptive use picks up and fertility levels stabilize, the incidence of abortion drops as well.

The data presented by Henshaw et al. found the same effect, but noted that increasing contraceptive use catches up eventually, decreasing the abortion rate. South Korea, Tunisia, and Turkey experienced a rise in both contraceptive and abortion rates at first, but are currently experiencing drops in abortion rates due to the greater use of contraceptives.

[…] at the top of the link. This observation is further confirmed by related studies, as pointed out in one of FF’s previous articles. But the point I was trying to make was that contraception fails, even if you are well educated on […]

Thanks – will have to look over the links. I'm already getting suspicious of some of the sources the article cites – Edward Green himself, for example, was explicit in explaining during an interview that any meaningful AIDS prevention program should include contraceptive education alongside abstinence.

And a good portion of the sources the article cites are not from research documents, but rather from the interpretation of said papers by Catholic-leaning sites and blogs – I've run into enough of these to know that they're not a very reliable source for interpreting the data.

hmmm…. not exactly the most credible of sources being cited in her article

all the "surveys" she cited were taken in the Bible-Belt states… surveys done in Utah, in Oklahoma… what did you expect the respondents answer when asked about their stance in birth control when you purposely conduct it in the most conservative parts of the US? That just about makes as much sense as doing an exclusive survey only among Pro-Life members then proclaim that "majority" do not support contraceptives.

It's sad to know that the Philippines is the only country in Southeast Asia without abortion and divorce. Yet it seems that abortion rates reaches stats of at least 500k a year here (Forsaken Lives, research about abortion in the Philippines). Tsk. Only in the Philippines.

If it's the anti-abortion view that the pig-headed pro-lifers want, then they should positively push for RH education, instead of the typical crab mentality of negatively trying a black propaganda against contraceptive use. The idiots who don't budge ("blah blah blah the statistics you boast about!!"), let's leave them be, we'd be wasting our time trying to reason with them. Let's go for those who are uncertain, so they'd understand the reality of the fight for the bill.

Actually it is 560,000 abortions. If you notice, data from "Forsaken Lives" are not properly footnoted. It erroneously contends that most of the 560k abortions are caused by "rape and incest." It further asserts that these abortions are caused by the Philippines anti-abortion law. Therefore, the questionable article broadly hints that we should remove our anti-abortion laws to reduce . Following that kind of reasoning, we should therefore outlaw our laws on murder and theft to minimize the rising murders and theft in our country.

Studying the abortions rates in the US, the article asserts that the abortion rates in the Philippines is 57% higher. CRRs research is designed to tug at our heartstrings which I am sure some Freethinkers will see right away because they recognize sloppy research when they see one.

from "Forsaken Lives"

“This report relies on secondary sources containing public health data relating to unsafe abortion, which is very limited as a result of the criminal ban.”[“Forsaken Lives,” pages 13, 21 and 30)

This does not stop them from pulling a ridiculous number from some nether region.

Board of Directors of CRR are mostly elitists, lawyers and consultants. Some of them are responsible for China's 1 child policy. Sole purpose of this group is to promote abortion.

Some anti-contraception folks have this strange idea: contraceptives = promiscuity = contraceptive failures = abortions. Many of them are middle/upper class and can afford contraceptives if they want to. So they seem to be saying that they can act responsibly, while others will turn into sex addicts with mere access to contraception. So you are right, stats will probably not convert these moralists, but can work with open-minded folks. Great post.

Great Work mike!
But sadly the Pro-lifers are just going to shift goal posts, and ignore all that hard work for their impossible and biased standards.

No mater how much evidence, data, or analysis or scrutiny you make, no matter how accessible or rigorously and meticulously professional and objective you present information Pro-lifers will never bow down to facts.

Even their understanding of Burden of Proof, objectivity and what constitutes as a Fallacy or a Bias are screwed up for them. One wonders how they can make any INFORMED decision, how the heck can they tell the quality of the information they are taking in?